Skip to main content

My Right to Refuse a COVID-19 Vaccine

I’m long on the record that we need to recalibrate the balance between individual freedom and society’s rights.  Personal freedom is often at the direct expense of society’s rights and expectations.  For example, an individual may argue that he has a right to air travel without having to proffer a government authorized ID or to submit to a search of his luggage. On this example, I think most of us would argue that society’s rights would prevail.

And there needs to be personal responsibility and accountability when one exercises particular personal freedoms.  If you want to ride a motorcycle, for example, then your insurance risks should be priced accordingly.  And if you don’t want to wear a helmet while riding, then you and other helmetless riders need to share in this risk so the rest of us don’t have to pay when an unwelcome event occurs on your ride. 

As in everything else in life, this terrain can become murky.  If a patient declines surgery that her medical team unanimously recommends, and as a result a long and expensive hospital stay ensues, would we hold her to be financially responsible?  No, we would not, but it does pose ethical questions.



Choosing Death Over a Vaccine!

Recently, an individual on kidney dialysis was deemed to be ineligible for transplant after refusing a COVID-19 vaccine.  Another patient was denied a heart transplant for the same reason.

Of course, these patients have the right to refuse the vaccine and any medical intervention.  I suspect that most of us in their circumstances would have decided the matter differently. The cardiac patient will likely die and the renal patient will face a shorter lifetime suffering under dialysis. And because of these 2 patient’s decisions, the rest of us must pick up the lifelong costs of dialysis, hospitalizations, etc.  Of course, society will absorb all of these avoidable costs which does bring up an issue of fairness.

Transplant physicians are empowered to establish medical criteria that must be abided by transplant candidates.  They have a responsibility to maximize the probability that the transplanted organs will successfully endure. 

In the current political climate, I’m surprised that no politician has railed from a podium demanding a law that would prohibit medical professionals from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine.

What would we think of another country, whose policies we would ordinarily decry, who mandated 100% vaccinations and have very low rates of illness, death, hospitalizations and economic disruption?  I’m not advocating for authoritarianism, but personal freedom can exact steep costs on society.  Are you ready for a conversation to consider a recalibration of our rights?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary